[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Regular Photography serves as a true representation of life captured
> by a photographers agility and imagination. Whereas digital
> photography is a representation of an artists creative imagination.
> In regular photography a person is trying to capture an existing real
> life image on film in the best possible way. However, in digital
> photography, the image is captured and then it is polished by the
> artists creative imagination using sophisticated tools.
Hi Prachicha,
Actually, this isn't necessarily the case. Both ends can be
achieved with either film or digital photography.
> In regular photography the
> resulting image is entirely dependant on the situation and the talent
> of the photographer. Whereas in digital photography the results
> obtained are enhanced by means of softwares and the artist relaxing
> in a AC room.
This also is not necessarily true. Even with digital photography
one is dependent on situation and talent. Your end product will
only be as good as what you captured on film (or digital
back)--even after manipulation.
Also, traditional photography is never finished with the
processing of the roll of film. Often that's where it begins,
because darkroom work is extremely important. Off one negative
there is an infinite number of possible prints one can make
either by dodging, burning, toning, cropping, etc., etc., etc.
And then there's the paper choice...Also, darkrooms tend to be
AC'd too. ;) You may not be "relaxing," but you're definitely
cool.
Anyway, the darkroom manipulation is really not very different
from software manipulation. This is so true that in Adobe
Photoshop many tools are ripped straight out of the darkroom and
put into the software. "Dodging" and "burning" are two good
examples. Much darkroom work attempts to do the same thing that
one does with digital manipulation.
> The equipment used in regular
> photography has greater shelf longevity, which means you buy the
> stuff today and you won't feel that you were a jackass at the end of
> the year. However, you spend money on digital equipment today by next
> christmas you feel your equipment is obsolete.
I can agree with you here about equipment obsolescence. But in
truth, digital photography is really an advance--the next
step--in the long history of creating images with light. In
twenty years, this will not even be debated. People will be using
digital like we use film. Plot the advances in digital image
capturing in megapixels. It won't be long before digital meets
and exceeds current abilities of emulsion and grain. Of course,
such advances can only be made accessible with affordable
storage, but I won't go there...the proof will be in the pudding.
So we will lament rapid obsolescence, but we'll also embrace the
newfound abilities the technologies provide. The biggest concern
for me (which is not that big) is image archiving. Will our
digitally stored images last as long or longer than our
negatives?
> So can we call pictures that were enhanced digitally as true
> representation of the art of photography or are these digitally
> enhanced pictures out of the perview of photography as an art.
This question reminds me of one debate that once raged regarding
the status of photography. Believe it or not, our precious hobby
(and profession, for some), was often considered NOT to be an
artform. (The argument went roughly as follows: In photography,
all you do is capture rays of light. Where's the creativity in
that? It's not like painting or sculture, is it?) Well, the
answer is a fargone conclusion. I bring this up because the
assumption present in the argument above is also in your
assessment of traditional photography: that we capture "true
representations of life." Well, the reality is that we don't.
What we do is ALWAYS abstraction. By the unavoidable fact that we
include and exclude what goes into our frame, we abstract. By the
impossibility of seeing anything more than one perspective at a
time (even with time-lapse, or multiple exposures), we abstract.
We tell the viewer what to see, and, to some degree, what to
think. We abstract no less than a painter does--regardless of
ability. The difference is that our work captures the actual
light that hits our eyes and transfers it to film, then to paper
(or a cathode ray tube). In painting or sculpting, the artist
attempts to transfer this light/touch/dimensionality through the
intermediary of his/her senses.
What does this mean for the dichotomy you've established? It
means there is no dichotomy. BOTH forms of photography are
manipulation and abstraction--both are the art of photography.
The only difference between the two is found in the set of tools
used.
> After having said all this, my question is which one is superior? My
> opinion is regular photography is always superior than digitally
> enhanced photography. Hope we can build constructively on this
> discussion.
I can't agree with you, because the definitions you've
established do not hold up in our exeperience. Furthermore,
digital will be superior. There will be a day, believe it or not,
when film is rarely, if not never, used. There will be nothing
that we can do with film today that we can't do digitally. This
sucks for us, because we love our film cameras and won't be able
to use them, but by then we'll all have digital cameras that will
forever alter the way we go about our work.
Unless there are comparable advances in chemistry, emulsion, and
grain (all of which are certainly possible), digital is going to
be the better option. But keep in mind, that the current industry
"leaders" in film chemistry development and production are also
the leaders in digital technology (Fuji, Kodak, etc.). They're
investing in this stuff because they KNOW photography is going to
go digital. At some point they're going to see chemical process
as economically unviable on a large scale and put that investment
captial into digital research. Then we'll really see digital
surpass chemical. We're really dependent on larger forces.
(On a totally different vein, I wonder which has greater
environmental impact: chemical processes and waste or silicon
production, waste, and cpu throwaways?)
We ARE seeing the ending of one era and the beginning of another.
And it's happening faster than I thought it would. Of course I'm
not saying throw away your film camera, but keep your eyes peeled
on the digital scene, because it's getting VERY interesting.
take care,
Chris
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
